Based on an AITA post I just saw, help me out a second, as an intersex woman who will never conceive. Is there an idea taken as axiomatic that a person who willfully remains absent from the occasion of their partner giving birth is committing an unspeakable moral dereliction?
-
Show this thread
-
Like I'm confused or at least surprised because what I'm hearing seems to indicate there is zero possible mitigating context, if you're not there for any reason you're pure fucking evil, the height of bastardry And it just kind of... I don't understand the intensity, like at all
5 replies 0 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
I mean the context of the post was—and we'll just go with text here, not subtext—somebody who saves lives for a living being on duty during a climate catastrophe with a friend who got the news their grandfather was on his death bed and staying so the other could be with him.
3 replies 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
It you take that situation at face value (it does seem a little contrived) then the calculus being employed there seems a lot like reasoning I would use. Like, somebody dying is gone forever? Assuming they're important to you a death usually takes priority over a birth?
4 replies 1 retweet 28 likesShow this thread -
Like you notify your partner, you send someone to be there in your stead, you FaceTime or something if at all possible, but Death wins (and yeah a baby can be stillborn too but if that's likely to happen there will typically be some indication in advance)
6 replies 0 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Like if that is literally the ethical problem then DEONTOLOGICALLY SPEAKING that is the most prosocial choice to me. The exception being if somebody was expected to die in advance, because you have a social responsibility to say your goodbyes _before_ you have to save lives
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Nymphomachy
The difference between deontology and consequentialism is a matter for endless debate when applied to individual situations but I think you're mixing it up here This is a consequentialist analysis ("Most likely the baby will be born without incident so no harm no foul")
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
The deontological argument is that as a husband you have a social role demanding you perform certain actions and what actually happens as a result doesn't matter Most traditional deontologists would say "husband" trumps "firefighter" or "friend"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
It doesn't matter that you can't affect whether the baby is born safely but you can save lives by being a firefighter, deontology says if you're counting the consequences after the event you've already strayed from the path of actual moral obligation
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
And this is kind of the thing, most of us have actually been taught to think like consequentialists but in our closest emotional relationships we start thinking in terms of deontology We want there to be duties that apply to us that don't get mathed
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
I would also argue it's just a monkeysphere thing. The spouse is More Real because their relationship is more personal, so Sending The Right Messages and Building the Right Life is registered as more essential
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.